Also, why do you think psychedelics should only be available on a limited basis?

Specifically, lsd should be available but on a limited basis. There is such a thing as too much lsd.

I can't say that shrooms or peyote or toad need to be limited, although I suspect so. If someone wants to trip for a few days that's one thing. If you're tripping all day every day for years, it's going to take it's toll. For the good of the public health, that should be restricted.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to polish my jack-boots.

Thank you for clarifying. I disagree because even if heavy drug abuse takes its toll on the body, I don't think it's the government's role to tell people what to do with their bodies. If you were implying that long-term psychedelic abuse might cause someone to act in ways in which they are harmful to others, I still think it should only be a legal matter regarding the crime perpetrated against another person. In other words, drug use shouldn't be a crime, but people should be held accountable for their actions while under the influence. If someone gets drunk and then gets arrested after groping another person, it should be the groping that is the crime.

I've done a great deal of psychedelics, dissociatives, combinations of both, and have even had periods where I would save up money and drugs to take a a few weeks or even a month in which I would take large amounts on an almost daily basis. Different people may have different experiences, but I've had no negative long-term effects nor have I had any violent or psychotic freak outs. Other people may react differently, but I suspect that those freaking out or committing crimes while tripping are only a very small percentage of those tripping on a given day. It's probably not too different percentage-wise from the number of drunken crimes vs. the number of people drinking on a given day.

CodeMonkey4Life:poot_rootbeer: Yeah, how come we never talk about the crackheads who DON'T break into your car or suck alley dick for a hit?!

Rob Ford is all over the news in Toronto

Ya, well he has been accused of being a drunken jerk at parties as well. It is more about behaviour and hypocrisy than anything else. If he wasn't such a rah-rah I love the cops kind of guy, we would probably take it differently. He has behaved .. oddly at times. He seems to appear to be drunk when attending various functions, and has been thrown out of them. It's just part of the same pattern.

fusillade762:mikek9: Sorry, had to stop at the, 'moms using crack while pregnant doesnt hurt the baby, being poor does' line. I mean, I was already getting pissed at the it's not the drugs fault, its cause they're poor stance, but that was the kicker for me and I couldnt read any further.

Um... the "Crack Baby" myth has been busted for a long time.

No specific disorders or conditions have been found to result for people whose mothers used cocaine while pregnant.[2] Studies focusing on children of six years and younger have not shown any direct, long-term effects of PCE on language, growth, or development as measured by test scores.[3] PCE also appears to have little effect on infant growth.[4] However, PCE is associated with premature birth, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, and other conditions. The effects of cocaine on a fetus are thought to be similar to those of tobacco and less severe than those of alcohol.

'Crack baby' scare overblown, teen research says

What's scary is the affects of alcohol on a fetus. A baby born to a heroin addict has a better chance of being normal than a baby born to an alcoholic.

I think some day, someone will be able to demonstrate that it is more of an allergic reaction than anything else. Some people can eat peanuts all day long, others can stop breathing after ingesting any peanuts. Probably the same thing with chemicals. Some people use drugs and still function, some use and be impaired, some use and die. Treat it with allergy testing, if someone tests extremely sensitive to drugs, they wear a medalert bracelet and stay clean and sober. Otherwise, enjoy it in the privacy of your home, don't imbibe and drive, or work stoned.

OgreMagi:fusillade762: mikek9: Sorry, had to stop at the, 'moms using crack while pregnant doesnt hurt the baby, being poor does' line. I mean, I was already getting pissed at the it's not the drugs fault, its cause they're poor stance, but that was the kicker for me and I couldnt read any further.

Um... the "Crack Baby" myth has been busted for a long time.

No specific disorders or conditions have been found to result for people whose mothers used cocaine while pregnant.[2] Studies focusing on children of six years and younger have not shown any direct, long-term effects of PCE on language, growth, or development as measured by test scores.[3] PCE also appears to have little effect on infant growth.[4] However, PCE is associated with premature birth, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, and other conditions. The effects of cocaine on a fetus are thought to be similar to those of tobacco and less severe than those of alcohol.

'Crack baby' scare overblown, teen research says

What's scary is the affects of alcohol on a fetus. A baby born to a heroin addict has a better chance of being normal than a baby born to an alcoholic.

It is really sad to see the almost violent reaction many people in our society have if they see a pregnant woman lighting a cigarette, but they ignore a woman guzzling alcohol while pregnant.

At this point in my life things are different. When I was really hurting cocaine helped ease the arthritis pain. It still does. Immediately. But now I have "legal" drugs. When I was younger I would try just about anything just because it was there and that was the crowd I was part of. And for the most part it was all good. I have lost friends to drugs. I have lost friends to cancer, car wrecks and old age. Sometimes not that old. I've smoked a lot of weed. Done a lot of drugs. And always held a steady job and met my responsibilities. I'm not going to say I'm better than you because I'm not. But every day of your life is a choice. I feel lucky I survived mine to get to this point. Let's see what tomorrow brings.

I'm housing, feeding, clothing and raising four children of drug addicts. When one of the parents stops by something of value disappears from my house. I don't see or ask for a dime because I know I'll never see it. They can't hold down a job past a payday or two because they get high as soon as they can afford drugs and screw it up. That they've already stolen everything they could from me is definitely a key contributor to their poverty problem.

When they got arrested for the thefts they weren't responsible because they're victims of drug addiction. They go to treatment, not to jail. There is no restitution because the courts know its pointless to demand it.

The kids speak of their father's in heroic terms as if they're off slaying dragons unaware that they never give them a second thought in return. They never show up for the kids, they only come around when they're desperate for something to steal.

Yeah, poverty sucks for these poor victims.

Well... doesn't it? That sounds like a sad life, unable to control or even want to control impulses. Hurting everyone who cares until there's no social network left. Seeing no good things left in life except the high. I pity them. I also feel bad for the people they hurt and believe there should be better programs and funds available to keep people from being the victims of someone else's addiction. They aren't mutually exclusive, you see. I can see that those who victimize can also be victims themselves. Punishing them or leaving them to their fates won't help or save anyone -- but helping them and their victims, now that's good for everybody.

Also, why do you think psychedelics should only be available on a limited basis?

Specifically, lsd should be available but on a limited basis. There is such a thing as too much lsd.

I can't say that shrooms or peyote or toad need to be limited, although I suspect so. If someone wants to trip for a few days that's one thing. If you're tripping all day every day for years, it's going to take it's toll. For the good of the public health, that should be restricted.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to polish my jack-boots.

do you know what prohibition does?

It makes a big neon sign that says YOU MUST TRY ME BECAUSE I AM SOO BADASS THEY BANNED ME. Humans, due to their nature, do exactly that.

Walter Paisley:Thank you for clarifying. I disagree because even if heavy drug abuse takes its toll on the body, I don't think it's the government's role to tell people what to do with their bodies. If you were implying that long-term psychedelic abuse might cause someone to act in ways in which they are harmful to others, I still think it should only be a legal matter regarding the crime perpetrated against another person.

I agree, in so far as personal health is concerned.

But that is not the only effect that illicit drugs have on society/community.

Like the guy above posted, the "crack baby" thing is a myth....Only that's a lie. the public understanding is maybe marginally overblown, but if you go on to read the whole wiki he linked, there's a shiat ton of things that can and do go wrong.

And you also have modified behavior, ie abuse and crime(irrelevant to purchasing and using). Rates do climb for people who tend to use frequently and heavily. People steal, prostitute themselves, and even kill so that they can obtain and consume more drugs.

This tends to not happen as much for gambling, smoking, or drinking, and pot.

IMO, there's got to be a line somewhere. I think it's just about right.

Yeah, some people can use responsibly and sporadically. But would it have been that way had we the culture that said it's ok, and where it was accessible to developing children? I don't think so, I think more people would utilize it, and therefore more people would be addicted to the point where it impacts others negatively.

Now, does that outweigh the effects of additional criminalization? No one can know. That's where pro-drug people become more like creationsists than they'd ever like to admit. They'd bet society on their ability to indulge.

We know the effects of alcohol and demanded by a demonstration of force that we wouldn't be without it. Millions of people use it every day and never hurt a soul, maybe neglect family and die young of liver problems, but never violent offenders except for drunk drivers and that's slowly sinking in. I don't think it would be that way if coke/meth/acid were as commonplace.

It's a shame that the people who can manage themselves are not allowed, but short of some sort of testing proceedure and liscensing, I simply see no way to be fair about it.

It's akin to speed limits on the highway. Some people and some cars can handle much greater speeds, but that is irrelevant. If something were to happen, we need the time to react, or keep the speeds to something tolerable should something actually go wrong. Deer to black ice to an accident ahead to the stability of more questionable vehicles. It's not some arbitrary moral reasoning(unless you want to quibble over 5mph differences state to state), it's objective facts at hand. It's a preventative measure that we can all cope with so that you don't have some douche hit a deer at 110 and disintegrate the front of his car all over the highway, and people slamming into him at 110.

I want to know how many people in these threads are for gun control, and against tobacco, and want abortion rights but don't have a problem with pregnant women who do drugs, etc etc.

It's never fun when responsible people need to give up some rights, but it's typically worse when irresponsible people fark up. Innocent people die. We as a people have proven that we need barriers. It's that simple, we're not magically above our animal roots, really, we are animals, just intelligent enough to screw ourselves over. Not enlightened whatsoever, in fact, in comparison to some other imaginable intelligent beings, we may be barely intelligent.

Face facts, you have doubts about the sanity and even the self awareness of half the farkwhits on this website, and you want to make harder drugs legal to those assholes from the politics tabs?

Yeah, no thanks. I'll gladly give a little to keep the unwashed farktard masses more in check.

Kumana Wanalaia:teenage mutant ninja rapist: For the life of me I could never figure out what separates the recreational drug user from an addict.

If you want to stop and you can't, you're addicted.

Qualifier: If you can't stop because you need the drug for medication. (See amphetamines for ADD, weed for various, heroin, etc.) It's like telling someone they are addicted to statins because they take it for high cholesterol; yes, they "can't" stop, but not the same motive at all.

That's a hard line to figure out too, but the one characteristic I noticed among the people I know is that addicts seem to have a death spiral about their lives. They start using drugs and it's downhill from there. People who are true recreational users or who are medicating can still be functional in the rest of your life. Also, if you use drugs around your life and forget about it when you're busy, you're fine. Plan your life around your drug use or obsess about it when you're doing something else, and you're crossing lines into addict territory.

Personally, I think his point is that society has conflated drugs with addiction and poverty, he just wasn't that clear about it.

I don't know, I've reloaded that page over and over, and on two separate browsers, and it just sits there. Anyone else having this issue? It's like having dialup again and waiting for a full sized movie preview to load.

But that is not the only effect that illicit drugs have on society/community.

Like the guy above posted, the "crack baby" thing is a myth....Only that's a lie. the public understanding is maybe marginally overblown, but if you go on to read the whole wiki he linked, there's a shiat ton of things that can and do go wrong.

And you also have modified behavior, ie abuse and crime(irrelevant to purchasing and using). Rates do climb for people who tend to use frequently and heavily. People steal, prostitute themselves, and even kill so that they can obtain and consume more drugs.

This tends to not happen as much for gambling, smoking, or drinking, and pot.

IMO, there's got to be a line somewhere. I think it's just about right.

Yeah, some people can use responsibly and sporadically. But would it have been that way had we the culture that said it's ok, and where it was accessible to developing children? I don't think so, I think more people would utilize it, and therefore more people would be addicted to the point where it impacts others negatively.

While I do pity people who feel desperate enough to commit property crimes or violent crimes to pay for their addictions, those are still actions that should be considered criminal. However, these situations are also made worse by prohibition: if drug addicts had more access to medical help without the fear of legal penalties, this might help to reduce the number of those crimes. It wouldn't eliminate those situations, but it would provide a much easier non-criminal alternative to stealing or robbing someone. Also, many deaths by overdose are due to people not getting medical treatment because of legal fears, which was recently addressed by a law in New Jersey http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/justice/new-jersey-overdose-law.

Mikey1969:I don't know, I've reloaded that page over and over, and on two separate browsers, and it just sits there. Anyone else having this issue? It's like having dialup again and waiting for a full sized movie preview to load.

Alcohol is one of the hardest drugs out there, yet we can sit here pretending that our having a beer or two after work is not doing drugs, and is different than if someone does a line of coke once a week when they go clubbing. It's stupid. The guy is 100% right.

utah dude:Mikey1969: I don't know, I've reloaded that page over and over, and on two separate browsers, and it just sits there. Anyone else having this issue? It's like having dialup again and waiting for a full sized movie preview to load.

it's being routed through bluffdale, first, bro.

LOL, I think it's also making at least part of the trip via smoke signals.

Mikey1969:utah dude: Mikey1969: I don't know, I've reloaded that page over and over, and on two separate browsers, and it just sits there. Anyone else having this issue? It's like having dialup again and waiting for a full sized movie preview to load.

it's being routed through bluffdale, first, bro.

LOL, I think it's also making at least part of the trip via smoke signals.

not dugway, bluffdale. man. get your conspiracys straight.

if you want to find your missing data, you can find a tunnel entrance under the city creek mall

There is a recent Independent Lens titled The House I Live In that I can't recommend enough. Carl Hart is in it. I don't know where you can watch it at since they took the full video off the PBS site, but I'm sure you folks can find a way.

Sgygus:omeganuepsilon: I'll gladly give a little to keep the unwashed farktard masses more in check.

Your attitude is exactly that that the article says is misinformed.

The article offers no real solutions to the problems that do exist except the magical "legalize it and all problems will vanish" that is touted by addicts world wide....oh, and pulls the race card quite blatantly.

Few of all of man's great skills even begin to compete with the addicts ability to rationalize why it's ok to get their fix.

But that is not the only effect that illicit drugs have on society/community.

Like the guy above posted, the "crack baby" thing is a myth....Only that's a lie. the public understanding is maybe marginally overblown, but if you go on to read the whole wiki he linked, there's a shiat ton of things that can and do go wrong.

And you also have modified behavior, ie abuse and crime(irrelevant to purchasing and using). Rates do climb for people who tend to use frequently and heavily. People steal, prostitute themselves, and even kill so that they can obtain and consume more drugs.

This tends to not happen as much for gambling, smoking, or drinking, and pot.

IMO, there's got to be a line somewhere. I think it's just about right.

While I agree there ought to be a line, I don't believe it's in the right place. The examples of gambling, smoking, drinking and pot are not necessarily less harmful because of the nature of the activity/substance, but largely because they're legal (except pot). As a matter of fact, legality often mitigates some of the destructive nature of these things, and alcohol is the perfect example of that.

It's akin to speed limits on the highway. Some people and some cars can handle much greater speeds, but that is irrelevant. If something were to happen, we need the time to react, or keep the speeds to something tolerable should something actually go wrong. Deer to black ice to an accident ahead to the stability of more questionable vehicles. It's not some arbitrary moral reasoning(unless you want to quibble over 5mph differences state to state), it's objective facts at hand. It's a preventative measure that we can all cope with so that you don't have some douche hit a deer at 110 and disintegrate the front of his car all over the highway, and people slamming into him at 110.

That's where pro-drug people become more like creationsists than they'd ever like to admit. They'd bet society on their ability to indulge.

The same could be said of prohibitionists who believe the only options are the current prohibition model or some sort of wild west anarchy drug free-for-all. Or that prohibition doesn't create more problems than it attempts to solve. Or that ending prohibition means to make no attempt whatsoever at harm reduction. Or that there's even a rational basis for which drugs are illegal.

CourtroomWolf:While I agree there ought to be a line, I don't believe it's in the right place. The examples of gambling, smoking, drinking and pot are not necessarily less harmful because of the nature of the activity/substance, but largely because they're legal (except pot).

I covered this, but you apparently glazed over it. When was the last time you heard of someone murdering so that they could get their gambling, smoking(either substance), or drinking fix? Assault and battery? Theft? 5$ handies by the dumpster behind Chucky Cheese?

OK, I'll give you theft, but it's not robbing stores or mugging people or anything, it's petty thievery. A sort that many a sociopath(or stupid teen) will resort to for any reason, primarily being, just because they can.(excluding natural klepto's at any rate)

CourtroomWolf:Speed limits are based on the physics of moving vehicles, so they aren't completely arbitrary (excluding some speed traps). Speed limits don't create unintended consequences, unless they're done wrong (set extremely far outside of the normal range of speed people would naturally drive).

Speed limits are in place to limit us. It's right there in the title. We punish people that break those limits even if they hurt no one in the process.

Why do they hate freedom!!!whargarble11!11?

Unintended consequences....Don't you watch cops?Speeding fines for breaking the law. Car chases. Damage to property, public and private, injury to police and civilians. Expenditure of public funds. Dirty cops that may indeed break the law themselves. Illicit street racing operations where people can and do make money.

The list goes on.

Also, I said "akin to", not "precisely the exact same in every possible way and not an analogy that cannot get picked over by yet another rationalization".

Check your circuits sparky.

You want change? That's fine. You've got to go out of your way to prove the impacts it will have, not just talks of peace love and harmony as if we were able to be swayed by sermons from your guru.

Until that is done, you're no better than any staunch conservative operating from his perspective of belief and morals that are in opposition to your beliefs and morals. Frankly, I wish you would all shut the fark up. Put your money where your mouth is, actually contribute to achieving more liberty for the people, instead of getting on the internet to condemn people you believeTM are wrong.

A Westboro Baptist member in liberal's clothing is still an ignorant, prejudiced, morally superiority complex having piece of shiat. If their(or creationists, or evangelicals or what have you), if their arguments don't work, that's because they're flawed arguments, not because they're on the wrong side of a moral subject.

The number 2 is the same, on either side of the equal sign. The same thing, just a different perspective.

Appeal to spite as subtly as you want, it doesn't work. I raised the point that we don't know the repercussions would be, implying that it requires study before anything can be done. No point in trial and error where it could be very bad, unless we were in dire straits(and in general, we're not all that bad off, the inability to do hard drugs is hardly destroying society)

I'm fine with the way drugs work now, with the exception of pot, and the public is well on it's way to getting it legalized. How many decades and generations of very obviously harmless stoners did that take to even really get the ball rolling?

Good luck in getting your illicit drug of choice legalized. Maybe in several decades when your grandchildren are watching OW MY BALLS! and your ashes are ceremonially sprinkled lightly on each line of coke.

Really, I think the line isn't so arbitrary as you like to pretend it is.

I wouldn't mind too much if I caught my 12 year old and up stealing a beer and sharing it with his friends, or tried a puff of a smoke and started hacking and turned green.

Heroin though? Coke? PCP? Meth? LSD? Yeah, not so much.

We're all fascinated with Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes specifically because they're not our kids. No one would want them to be their kids, in fact, keep those two as far away from my kids as possible.

Why? Because no matter how well it's regulated, if it's legal, it's going to get accessed by the kids, same way all things are now. Beer is far easier to obtain that coke or heroin in most of the country, and a great many of us, with reason, would like to keep it that way.

/cue "Won't someone think of the children!" the most mature of counter arguments.//maybe pepper in some "I learned it by watching you, Dad. I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU!"

Kumana Wanalaia:I can't say that shrooms or peyote or toad need to be limited, although I suspect so. If someone wants to trip for a few days that's one thing. If you're tripping all day every day for years, it's going to take it's toll. For the good of the public health, that should be restricted.

One of the things about acid is if you dose too soon after tripping, nothing happens. Too soon being a few days. Another notable thing is most people who've done acid, have done less than 20 trips total.

Seriously the USoA has some serious issues when it comes to skin colour - it is bought up on tv and news articles WAAAAYYY more than any other country's news I watch/read.

I suspect some deeply buried (justified) long term guilt/farked-up-ness.

For some reason it always seems to come down to race (I pity the millions of citizens who can pick or chose their ancestry depending on the situation, because others will also (and tend to be parochial.))(reposted in right thread.)

FTA--CH: The first thing is we decriminalize all drugs. More than 80% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for simple possession. When you decriminalize, now you have that huge number of people-we're talking 1.5 million people arrested every year-that no longer have that blemish on their record. That increases the likelihood that they can get jobs, participate in the mainstream.

---

I'll go along with this much, although I don't know where he gets the statistic that four fifths of all drug-related arrests are for possession. I would, however, require people who are caught in possession of drugs to go through treatment, as is done in Portugal.

Seriously the USoA has some serious issues when it comes to skin colour - it is bought up on tv and news articles WAAAAYYY more than any other country's news I watch/read.

I suspect some deeply buried (justified) long term guilt/farked-up-ness.

For some reason it always seems to come down to race (I pity the millions of citizens who can pick or chose their ancestry depending on the situation, because others will also (and tend to be parochial.))(reposted in right thread.)

It's because every person who is not white in the US (citizen or not) is given a bunch of race cards upon birth or entry to make up for the unfair hand they've been dealt and while some are too proud to use them, others will throw them down as often as possible.

I just wonder if I'll get to draw some race cards in a few decades when white people become a minority.

tirob:FTA--CH: The first thing is we decriminalize all drugs. More than 80% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for simple possession. When you decriminalize, now you have that huge number of people-we're talking 1.5 million people arrested every year-that no longer have that blemish on their record. That increases the likelihood that they can get jobs, participate in the mainstream.

---

I'll go along with this much, although I don't know where he gets the statistic that four fifths of all drug-related arrests are for possession. I would, however, require people who are caught in possession of drugs to go through treatment, as is done in Portugal.

Treatment is obviously necessary. People are still ruining marijuana by burning it.The more you know,,,

snocone:tirob: FTA--CH: The first thing is we decriminalize all drugs. More than 80% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for simple possession. When you decriminalize, now you have that huge number of people-we're talking 1.5 million people arrested every year-that no longer have that blemish on their record. That increases the likelihood that they can get jobs, participate in the mainstream.

---

I'll go along with this much, although I don't know where he gets the statistic that four fifths of all drug-related arrests are for possession. I would, however, require people who are caught in possession of drugs to go through treatment, as is done in Portugal.

Treatment is obviously necessary. People are still ruining marijuana by burning it.The more you know,,,

1. The sentence I wrote was not ambiguous notwithstanding anything you may think.

Meth is the new crack. It is the same thing as Adderall, but we are told it causes people's faces and teeth to decay. There is no evidence to suggest meth alone, versus poor hygiene, makes people look ugly.

It's 75% dextroamphetamine and 25% levoamphetamine according to Wikipedia, comprised of four different salts of amphetamine.

C9H13N versus C10H15N. Think about Galantamine, which is almost identical to Morphine (same physical structure, nearly) but has two additional Hydrogen atoms and a completely different mechanism of action. Morphine is also ridiculously addictive, while Galantamine isn't.

There's no reason to suggest that methamphetamine doesn't have a completely different effect on people than dextroamphetamine. It could (and is believed to) be far more addictive, toxic, and whatever else; it absolutely has a different half-life; they're probably both of the same solubility, though that can differ both between compounds and between delivery forms (i.e. which salt you use--anything that's HCl is usually water soluble and highly water soluble at that, for example).

That sentence doesn't inspire confidence that the guy knows what he's talking about.

Aw, damn, why's it have to be psychology? There are plenty of sciences out there that are, you know, scientific, and he has to go with a "science" of warm, fuzzy, non-quantifiable stuff? Noteven psychiatry, in which case he'd actually be somewhatqualified to talk about psychoactives?

I am disappoint.

/works in "hard" (i.e. not "social") science//but is staff at Berkeley, and thus clearly qualified-by-association to talk about drugs :)

dbirchall:Aw, damn, why's it have to be psychology? There are plenty of sciences out there that are, you know, scientific, and he has to go with a "science" of warm, fuzzy, non-quantifiable stuff?

Psychology is a real science, but it's a very long ways behind others sciences. Plenty that's quantifiable about it, like Pavlov's dogs. Unfortunately, things like pavlov's babies came around, which also pretty much put a stop to any mucking about with humans.

Hamstrung right before we get to study the good stuff. Rightly so, but still.

It's a real science, but there are so many variables to it and so little we're allowed to test on.Unless you're of a sort that thinks emotions and memories are granted by god....there is always cause and effect at work there, just so much of it at a scale that we can't observe readily.

It's very akin to what held biology back so long, desecration of corpses and all that.